TOPIC – Personal choices, the Constitution’s endurance
In a short and well – reasoned order, the Allahabad High Court declared last month that religious conversions, even when made solely for the purposes of marriage, constituted a valid exercise of a person’s liberties. The High Court ruled that the freedom to live with a person of one’s choice is intrinsic to the fundamental right to life and personal liberty. In holding thus, the order recognized that our society rested on the foundations of individual dignity, that a person’s freedom is not conditional on the caste, creed, or religion that her partner might claim to profess, and that every person had an equal dominion over their own senses of conscience. None of this ought to need spelling out in a secular, democratic republic. Not least over 70 years after its founding. But such are the times that we live in, with various State governments undertaking projects to outlaw what they describe pejoratively as “Love Jihad”, that this decision is an important reminder of the Constitution’s goals and promises. The High Court’s order makes it clear that it is neither the province of the state nor any other individual to interfere with a person’s choice of partner or faith. By invoking the Supreme Court’s judgment in Puttas wamy, the High Court held that an individual’s ability to control vital aspects of her life inheres in her right to privacy, that this promise includes the preservation of decisional autonomy, on matters, among other things, of “personal intimacies, the sanctity of family life, marriage, procreation, the home, and sexual orientation”. The petitioners, Salamat Ansari and Priyanka Kharwar had approached the High Court seeking orders to quash a First Information Report (FIR) that was lodged against them. This FIR alleged that a series of crimes had been committed, including one under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code, which criminalizes the abduction of a woman with an intent to compel her to marry against her will. The petitioners claimed that they were both adults competent to contract a marriage, and had, in fact, wedded in August 2019, as per Muslim rites and ceremonies, only after Ms. Kharwar had converted to Islam. They said, they had been living together for more than a year, and that their peace and happiness had been threatened by the prospects of prosecution. The State resisted these claims. It argued that Mr. Ansari and Ms. Kharwar’s partnership had no sanctity in the law because a conversion with a singular aim of getting married was illegitimate. In making this argument, the government relied on a pair of judgments delivered by single judges of the Allahabad High Court, in particular on the judgment in Noor Jahan v. State of U.P. (2014). There, the High Court had held that conversion by an individual to Islam was valid only when it was predicated on a “change of heart” and on an “honest conviction” in the tenets of the newly adopted religion. Additionally, the High Court had ruled that the burden to prove the validity of conversion was on the party professing the act. Therefore, in Salamat Ansari, it was argued that it was for the woman to establish that her conversion was borne out of her conscience and out of a deepseated belief in the teachings of her new religion. The Division Bench rejected this theory. It held that the judgment in Noor Jahan was incorrectly delivered. Marriage, the High Court said, is a matter of choice, and every adult woman has a fundamental right to choose her own partner. Even if such a decision encourages other concomitant decisions, including a choice of religion, the state can have little to do with it. According to the High Court, the Constitution is violated every time matters of intimate and personal choice are made vulnerable to the paternal whims of the state. Important as these findings might be, the verdict in Salamat Ansari is not a product of any interpretive ingenuity. Article 25 of the Constitution expressly protects the choices that individuals make.
MEANINGS AND WORDS
Intrinsic (adjective) – Belonging to a thing by its very nature
Synonyms – inherent, ingrained, congenital, inbred, intuitive
Antonyms – extrinsic, extraneous, ancillary, frivolous, trifling
Creed (noun) – Any system of principles
Synonyms – belief, credo, doctrine, tenet, dogma
Antonyms – atheism, betrayal, stupidity, disbelieves, hypocrisy
Pejoratively (adjective) – Expressing disapproval
Synonyms – disdainfully, sneeringly, bitingly, maliciously, scornfully
Antonyms – complimentary, delighted, approbation, laud, plaudit
Inheres (verb) – Be inherent in something
Synonyms – resides, consists, belongs
Quash (verb) – To beat down
Synonyms – annul, crush, cancel, subdue, void
Antonyms – create, validate, mend, support, heal
Compel (verb) – Force somebody to do something
Synonyms – force, oblige, constrain, coerce, dragoon
Antonyms – free, impede, deter, coax, summary
Illegitimate (adjective) – Contrary to or forbidden by law
Synonyms – illegal, unlawful, outlawed, bastard, prohibited
Antonyms – legal, fair, virtuous
Rely (verb) – To rest with confidence
Synonyms – trust, swear, support, pivot
Antonyms – doubt, disbelief, disinclined, dubitation, hunch
Tenet (noun) – A religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof
Synonyms – doctrine, dogma, belief, creed, conviction
Antonyms – disbelief, ignorance, stupidity, atheism, avert
Borne (verb) – Put up with something
Synonyms – supported, bear, worn, covered, paid
Antonyms – downtrodden, arbitrary, unfounded, ignored, kicked
Concomitant (adjective) – Following or accompanying as a consequence
Synonyms – attendant, accompanying, resultant, related, simultaneous
Antonyms – unrelated, vintage, antecedent, independent, out
Whims (noun) – A sudden desire
Synonyms – caprice, quirks, fads, fancy, whimsy
Antonyms – plans, aversions, realities
Ingenuity (noun) – Openness of heart
Synonyms – inventiveness, cleverness, creativity, talent, dexterity
Antonyms – inability, clumsiness, clumsy, silliness, stupidity
